Number of Representatives in the House by State

How 435 seats are distributed to fifty states

Partisan control of congressional redistricting after the 2022 elections, with the number of U.S. House seats each state will receive.

 Democratic control

 Republican command

 Split or bipartisan control

 Independent redistricting commission

 No redistricting necessary

The 435 seats of the Firm grouped by state (post-2010 Census reapportionment)

Allotment of seats by land, as percentage of overall number of representatives in the House, 1789-2020 Demography

United States congressional apportionment is the process^[ane] by which seats in the The states House of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the most recent decennial demography mandated by the U.s. Constitution. Each country is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states.^[ii] Every land is constitutionally guaranteed at least one seat.

The number of voting seats in the Business firm of Representatives has been 435 since 1913, capped at that number by the Reapportionment Act of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Matrimony.^[3] The Huntington–Hill method of equal proportions has been used to distribute the seats amongst the states since the 1940 census reapportionment.^{[i] [iv]} Federal law requires the Clerk of the U.s. House of Representatives to notify each state government of the number of seats apportioned to the country no later than January 25 of the twelvemonth immediately following each decennial census.

The size of a country's total congressional delegation (which in addition to representative(s) includes 2 senators for each country) besides determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Electoral College, which elects the U.S. president.

Constitutional context [edit]

Article One, Department 2, Clause 3 of the Usa Constitution initially provided:

Representatives and directly Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included inside this Union, according to their corresponding Numbers, which shall be determined by calculation to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians non taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall accept at to the lowest degree one Representative;…

"Three-fifths of all other persons" refers to the inclusion of iii⁄v of the slaves in the population base.

Post-obit the end of the Civil State of war, the outset of those provisions was superseded by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Subpoena:

Representatives shall be apportioned amongst the several States according to their corresponding numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each Country, excluding Indians non taxed.^[5] But when the right to vote at whatever election for the selection of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a Country, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, existence twenty-one years of historic period, and citizens of the The states, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the footing of representation therein shall exist reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Reapportionment [edit]

Reapportionments ordinarily occur following each decennial demography, though the law that governs the total number of representatives and the method of apportionment to be carried into force at that time are enacted prior to the census.

The decennial apportionment also determines the size of each land'due south representation in the U.South. Electoral Higher. Under Article II, Department ane, Clause two of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors of any state equals the size of its total congressional delegation (House and Senate seats).

Federal police force requires the Clerk of the House of Representatives to notify each state authorities no later on than January 25 of the year immediately following the demography of the number of seats to which it is entitled. Whether or not the number of seats has changed, the state determines the boundaries of congressional districts—geographical areas within the country of approximately equal population—in a process chosen redistricting.^{[half dozen]}

Considering the deadline for the House Clerk to report the results does not occur until the following January, and the states need sufficient time to perform the redistricting, the decennial demography does not affect the elections that are held during that same year. For case, the electoral higher circulation during the 2022 presidential election was still based on the 2010 census results.

Number of members [edit]

The U.Due south. population has increased more rapidly than the membership of the House of Representatives.

The size of the U.S. House of Representatives refers to the total number of congressional districts (or seats) into which the state expanse of the United States proper has been divided. The number of voting representatives is currently set up at 435. In that location are an boosted five delegates to the House of Representatives. They correspond the District of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, which first elected a representative in 2008,^[vii] and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico too elects a resident commissioner every four years.

Controversy and history [edit]

Since 1789, when the federal authorities began operating under the Constitution, the number of citizens per congressional district has risen from an average of 33,000 in 1790 to over 700,000 as of 2018^[update]. Prior to the 20th century, the number of representatives increased every decade as more states joined the wedlock, and the population increased.

Representation in the Firm, historical

Starting yearY	Source	Avg. Constituents per member
1793	1790 Census	34,436
1803	1800 Demography	34,609
1813	1810 Census	36,377
1823	1820 Census	42,124
1833	1830 Demography	49,712
1843	1840 Census	71,338
1853	1850 Census	93,020
1863	1860 Demography	122,614
1873	1870 Census	130,533
1883	1880 Demography	151,912
1893	1890 Census	173,901
1903	1900 Census	193,167
1913	1910 Demography	210,583
1923	1920 Census	243,728
1933	1930 Census	280,675
1943	1940 Demography	301,164
1953	1950 Census	334,587
1963	1960 Census	410,481
1973	1970 Census	469,088
1983	1980 Census	510,818
1993	1990 Census	571,477
2003	2000 Census	646,946
2013	2010 Census	709,760
2023	2020 Census	761,169
YElections are held the preceding twelvemonth

The ideal number of members has been a contentious result since the country'due south founding. George Washington agreed that the original representation proposed during the Constitutional Convention (one representative for every 40,000) was inadequate and supported an amending to reduce that number to xxx,000.^[8] This was the only time that Washington pronounced an opinion on any of the actual issues debated during the entire convention.^[9] Five years later on, Washington was so insistent on having no more than xxx,000 constituents per representative that he exercised the outset presidential veto in history on a bill which allowed half states to go over the quota.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison argued that the size of the House of Representatives has to remainder the ability of the body to legislate with the need for legislators to have a relationship close enough to the people to understand their local circumstances, that such representatives' social class be low plenty to sympathize with the feelings of the mass of the people, and that their ability be diluted plenty to limit their abuse of the public trust and interests.

... kickoff, that so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper cognition of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they volition be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize to the lowest degree with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; ...^[10]

Madison likewise addressed Anti-Federalist claims that the representation would be inadequate, arguing that the major inadequacies are of minimal inconvenience since these will be cured rather quickly by virtue of decennial reapportionment. He noted, nonetheless,

I take for granted hither what I shall, in answering the quaternary objection, hereinafter show, that the number of representatives will exist augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution. On a contrary supposition, I should admit the objection to have very swell weight indeed.

Madison argued against the assumption that more is better:

Threescore or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or vii. But it does not follow that half dozen or 7 hundred would exist proportionally a better depositary. And if we bear on the supposition to six or seven thou, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. ... In all very numerous assemblies, of whatsoever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.^[10]

Global comparison and disparities [edit]

When talking about the populations inside California's reapportioned Firm districts in 1951, a report from Duke University constitute that "[in that location] is not an excessive disparity in commune populations, simply [the populations and disparities are] peradventure larger than necessary."^[11] If the Business firm connected to expand every bit it did prior to the Reapportionment Act of 1929, it would currently take ane,156 members (however just the second largest lower house, afterwards People's republic of china).^[12] This would give the representatives, on boilerplate, nearly 287 thousand constituents, on par with Japan'southward National Diet.

The U.s.a. likewise has comparatively massive constituencies for OECD members, with almost three times more constituents per legislator on average than Japan and Mexico.^[12] The U.S. has the third most populous boilerplate legislative districts in the globe (second if the European union'south European Parliament is non included).

Membership cap [edit]

The Circulation Human activity of 1911 (Public Law 62-5) raised the membership of the U.S. House to 433 and provided for an apportionment. It also provided for additional seats upon the admissions of Arizona and New Mexico as states, increasing the number to 435 in 1912.

In 1921, Congress failed to reapportion the Business firm membership every bit required by the United States Constitution. This failure to reapportion may have been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may take feared the effect such a reapportionment would take on their time to come electoral prospects.^{[13] [14]} A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional way would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats^{[ citation needed ]}, simply many members would accept lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the House chamber did not take adequate seats for 483 members. By 1929, no reapportionment had been fabricated since 1911, and there was vast representational inequity, measured past the average district size. By 1929 some states had districts twice as large equally others due to population growth and demographic shift.^[15]

In 1929 Congress (with Republican command of both houses of Congress and the presidency) passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the so electric current number) and established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats. This cap has remained unchanged since then, except for a temporary increase to 437 members upon the 1959 admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Spousal relationship.^[xvi]

Two states – Wyoming and Vermont, – have populations smaller than the average for a single district, although none of those states have fewer people than the least populous congressional districts (as of the 2022 census, Montana'due south two districts).

Proposed expansion [edit]

The first proposed amendment to the Constitution within the Bill of Rights attempted to prepare a pattern for growth of the Business firm along with the population, but has not been ratified.

Article the starting time ... Afterward the start enumeration required past the beginning article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall corporeality to one hundred, later which the proportion shall exist so regulated by Congress, that there shall exist not less than ane hundred Representatives, nor less than ane Representative for every 40 thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; afterwards which the proportion shall be so regulated past Congress, that there shall not exist less than 2 hundred Representatives, nor more one Representative for every l m persons.^[17]

With the nation'due south population reaching approximately 308.7 million co-ordinate to the 2010 census, the proposed subpoena would have called for an upwards-to 6,000-fellow member Firm.^{[eighteen] [19] [xx]}

1 proposal to fix the current constituency disparities and the high boilerplate number of constituents in many states' congressional districts is the "Wyoming rule." Operating similar to New Zealand's method of allocation for proportional representation, it would requite the least populous state (which has been Wyoming since 1990) one representative then create districts in other states with the aforementioned population.^[21]

Another proposed expansion rule, the cube root dominion,^[22] calls for the membership of the legislature to exist based on the cube root (rounded up) of the U.S. population at the last census. For example, such a rule would call for 692 members of the House based on the 2022 U.s. Demography. An boosted House fellow member would be added each time the national population exceeds the side by side cube; in this case, the next House member would exist added when the census population reached 331,373,889, and the one after that at 332,812,558. A variation would split the representation betwixt the Firm and the Senate, e.m. 592 members in the House (692 − 100 Senators).^[23]

On May 21, 2001, Rep. Alcee Hastings sent a beloved colleague alphabetic character pointing out that U.South. expansion of its legislature had not kept pace with other countries.^[24]

In 2007, during the 110th Congress, Representative Tom Davis introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would add together two seats to the House, ane for Utah and one for the District of Columbia. It was passed past the Business firm, but was tripped up by procedural hurdles in the Senate and withdrawn from consideration. An identical beak was reintroduced during the 111th Congress. In February 2009 the Senate adopted the mensurate 61–37. In April 2010, withal, House leaders decided to shelve the proposal.^[25]

Apportionment methods [edit]

Apportionment in the House of the US population, 2010-2019

Land	Population Percent		Firm Pct
	2019	2010	2019[note one]	2010
California	12.06%	12.09%	11.95%	12.18%
Texas	viii.85%	viii.16%	8.74%	8.28%
Florida	half dozen.56%	6.10%	half dozen.44%	6.21%
New York	5.94%	half dozen.29%	five.98%	6.21%
Pennsylvania	3.91%	iv.12%	three.91%	4.14%
Illinois	iii.87%	4.16%	3.91%	4.fourteen%
Ohio	3.57%	iii.74%	3.68%	3.68%
Georgia	3.24%	iii.14%	3.22%	3.22%
North Carolina	3.20%	3.09%	3.22%	2.99%
Michigan	three.05%	three.21%	2.99%	3.22%
New Jersey	2.71%	2.85%	2.76%	two.76%
Virginia	2.61%	two.60%	2.53%	2.53%
Washington	ii.32%	2.xviii%	two.30%	2.30%
Arizona	ii.22%	2.07%	2.30%	2.07%
Massachusetts	2.10%	2.12%	2.07%	two.07%
Tennessee	2.09%	ii.06%	2.07%	2.07%
Indiana	2.06%	two.10%	2.07%	2.07%
Missouri	one.87%	i.94%	one.84%	1.84%
Maryland	i.85%	1.87%	i.84%	1.84%
Wisconsin	1.78%	i.85%	one.84%	1.84%
Colorado	ane.76%	i.63%	one.84%	1.61%
Minnesota	ane.72%	i.72%	1.61%	1.84%
Southward Carolina	i.57%	one.50%	1.61%	1.61%
Alabama	1.l%	1.55%	i.61%	one.61%
Louisiana	i.42%	1.47%	1.38%	1.38%
Kentucky	i.36%	1.41%	ane.38%	ane.38%
Oregon	i.29%	1.24%	1.38%	1.15%
Oklahoma	i.21%	ane.22%	1.15%	i.fifteen%
Connecticut	1.09%	1.sixteen%	1.15%	1.15%
Utah	0.98%	0.90%	0.92%	0.92%
Iowa	0.96%	0.99%	0.92%	0.92%
Nevada	0.94%	0.88%	0.92%	0.92%
Arkansas	0.92%	0.95%	0.92%	0.92%
Mississippi	0.91%	0.96%	0.92%	0.92%
Kansas	0.89%	0.93%	0.92%	0.92%
New Mexico	0.64%	0.67%	0.69%	0.69%
Nebraska	0.59%	0.59%	0.69%	0.69%
West Virginia	0.55%	0.60%	0.46%	0.69%
Idaho	0.55%	0.51%	0.46%	0.46%
Hawaii	0.43%	0.44%	0.46%	0.46%
New Hampshire	0.42%	0.43%	0.46%	0.46%
Maine	0.41%	0.43%	0.46%	0.46%
Montana	0.33%	0.32%	0.46%	0.23%
Rhode Island	0.32%	0.34%	0.23%	0.46%
Delaware	0.xxx%	0.29%	0.23%	0.23%
South Dakota	0.27%	0.26%	0.23%	0.23%
Due north Dakota	0.23%	0.22%	0.23%	0.23%
Alaska	0.22%	0.23%	0.23%	0.23%
Vermont	0.19%	0.20%	0.23%	0.23%
Wyoming	0.18%	0.xviii%	0.23%	0.23%
^ 2019 numbers are calculations from estimated population data

Apart from the requirement that each state is to exist entitled to at least one representative in the Firm of Representatives, the number of representatives in each state is in principle to be proportional to its population. Since the adoption of the Constitution, 5 distinct apportionment methods have been used.

The start apportionment was contained in Fine art. I, § 2, cl. iii of the Constitution. After the first Census in 1790, Congress passed the Apportionment Act of 1792 and adopted the Jefferson method to apportion U.S. Representatives to the states based on population.^[26] The Jefferson method required partial remainders to be discarded when calculating each state'south full number of U.S. Representatives and was used until the 1830 demography.^{[27] [28] [29] [30]} The Webster method, proposed in 1832 by Daniel Webster and adopted for the 1840 Census, allocated an additional Representative to states with a fractional remainder greater than 0.five.^[31] The Hamilton/Vinton (largest remainder) method was used from 1850^{[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]} until 1900. The Vinton or Hamilton method was shown to be susceptible to an apportionment paradox.^[38] The Apportionment Act of 1911, in addition to setting the number of U.S. Representatives at 435, returned to the Webster method, which was used following the 1910 and 1930 censuses (no reapportionment was done later the 1920 census). The electric current method, known as the Huntington–Hill method or method of equal proportions, was adopted in 1941 for reapportionment based on the 1940 demography and beyond.^{[1] [4] [39] [40]} The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives set in the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

The method of equal proportions [edit]

The apportionment method currently used is the method of equal proportions, which minimizes the percentage differences in the number of people per representative among the different states.^[41] The resulting circulation is optimal in the sense that any additional transfer of a seat from one country to another would result in larger percentage differences.^[42]

In this method, equally a first stride, each of the l states is given its one guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives, leaving 385 seats to assign. The remaining seats are allocated ane at a time, to the country with the highest priority number. Thus, the 51st seat would go to the most populous country (currently California). The priority number is determined by the ratio of the land population to the geometric mean of the number of seats it currently holds in the assignment process, n (initially 1), and the number of seats it would hold if the seat were assigned to it, n+1. Symbolically, the priority number A_{due north} is

${\displaystyle A_{north}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {due north(north+1)}}}}$

where P is the population of the country, and n is the number of seats it currently holds before the possible allotment of the next seat. An equivalent, recursive definition is

${\displaystyle A_{m+1}={\sqrt {\frac {thou}{m+two}}}\ A_{m}}$

${\displaystyle A_{n}={\sqrt {\frac {north-1}{n+1}}}\ A_{n-1}}$

where n is withal the number of seats the country has before allocation of the next (in other words, for the mthursday allocation, north = chiliad-i, where m > 1), and for northward = one, the initial A ₁ is explicitly defined by the not-recursive formula every bit

${\displaystyle A_{ane}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {2}}}}$

Consider the reapportionment following the 2010 U.S. Census: beginning with all states initially beingness allocated one seat, the largest value of A _i corresponds to the largest country, California, which is allocated seat 51. After being allocated its 2nd seat, its priority value decreases to its A ₂ value, which is reordered to a position back in line. The 52nd seat goes to Texas, the 2nd largest country, considering its A ₁ priority value is larger than the A_n of whatever other country. Withal, the 53rd seat goes back to California because its A ₂ priority value is larger than the A_n of any other state. The 54th seat goes to New York because its A _ane priority value is larger than the A_n of any other land at this point. This procedure continues until all remaining seats are assigned. Each fourth dimension a state is assigned a seat, n is incremented past 1, causing its priority value to be reduced and reordered amongst u.s., whereupon another state normally rises to the superlative of the list.

The Census 2010 Ranking of Priority Values^[43] shows the gild in which seats 51–435 were apportioned later the 2010 Census, with additional listings for the next five priorities. Minnesota was allocated the final (435th) seat. Due north Carolina missed its 14th seat by fifteen,754 residents as the 436th seat to be allocated; x years before it had gained its 13th seat every bit the 435th seat to be allocated based on the 2000 census.^[44]

The Demography 2022 Ranking of Priority Values^[45] shows the order in which seats 51–435 were apportioned after the 2022 Census, with additional listings for the next ten priorities. For the second fourth dimension in a row, Minnesota was allocated the final (435th) seat. If either New York had registered 89 more residents or Minnesota had registered 26 fewer residents, New York would have been allocated the 435th seat instead.^{[46] [47]}

Past apportionments [edit]

Note: The offset apportionment was established by the Constitution based on population estimates made by the Philadelphia Convention, and was not based on whatsoever demography or enumeration.

Bold indicates the largest number of representatives each state has had.

Statehood order	Census	Const.	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	fifth	6th	7th	eighth	9th	10th	11th	twelfth	13th	15th[a]	16th	17th	18th	19th	20th	21st	22nd	23rd	24th
	Year	1789	1790	1800	1810	1820	1830	1840	1850	1860	1870	1880	1890	1900	1910	1930	1940	1950	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2020
	Effected	1789	1793	1803	1813	1823	1833	1843	1853	1863	1873	1883	1893	1903	1913	1933	1943	1953	1963	1973	1983	1993	2003	2013	2023
	Size	65	105	142	182	213	240	223	234	241	292	325	356	386	435
	Country
22	AL	–	–	–	–	3	v	7	7	6	8	8	9	ix	10	ix	9	ix	8	7	7	7	7	vii	seven
49	AK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	ane	1	ane	ane	i
48	AZ	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	one	two	2	iii	4	5	6	8	9	9
25	AR	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	2	3	4	5	6	vii	seven	7	7	6	4	four	iv	4	4	4	four
31	CA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	four	6	seven	eight	11	xx	23	30	38	43	45	52	53	53	52
38	CO	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	2	3	4	4	four	4	4	5	6	6	seven	7	8
5	CT	five	7	7	seven	6	6	4	4	iv	4	4	four	5	5	vi	six	6	6	half dozen	6	6	5	5	5
1	DE	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	one	1	1	1	1	i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
27	FL	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ane	i	two	ii	2	3	4	v	6	8	12	15	19	23	25	27	28
4	GA	three	2	4	6	vii	9	8	8	vii	9	10	11	11	12	ten	10	10	10	10	10	11	13	14	14
50	Hullo	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	ii	2	ii	2	two	2
43	ID	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	1	2	ii	2	2	2	2	2	ii	2	2	two
21	IL	–	–	–	–	i	three	7	9	14	19	20	22	25	27	27	26	25	24	24	22	20	nineteen	xviii	17
19	IN	–	–	–	–	3	seven	10	11	eleven	thirteen	13	13	13	13	12	11	xi	11	eleven	10	ten	9	nine	nine
29	IA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ii	6	9	11	11	11	11	9	eight	viii	7	6	six	5	5	iv	4
34	KS	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	three	7	8	8	8	vii	vi	6	v	5	5	4	iv	4	four
15	KY	–	2	six	10	12	xiii	10	10	9	10	xi	xi	11	11	9	9	8	seven	seven	7	6	half dozen	half-dozen	6
18	LA	–	–	–	ane	three	three	4	4	5	half dozen	six	vi	seven	8	viii	eight	8	8	eight	viii	7	7	vi	6
23	ME	–	–	–	–	seven	eight	7	6	5	5	4	4	4	4	3	three	3	2	ii	2	2	2	2	two
7	Physician	6	8	ix	9	9	8	six	half dozen	5	vi	6	half dozen	vi	6	six	half-dozen	vii	8	8	eight	8	8	8	8
6	MA	8	xiv	17	xx	13	12	10	11	10	11	12	13	14	16	15	14	14	12	12	11	ten	10	9	9
26	MI	–	–	–	–	–	–	three	iv	6	nine	11	12	12	13	17	17	18	19	19	18	16	15	14	xiii
32	MN	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	five	vii	9	ten	9	ix	9	8	8	8	eight	8	8	8
20	MS	–	–	–	–	1	2	4	5	5	vi	7	7	8	8	7	7	6	v	5	5	five	4	4	4
24	MO	–	–	–	–	1	2	five	7	9	13	14	15	16	xvi	13	13	11	10	10	9	ix	nine	8	viii
41	MT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	1	ii	2	2	2	2	ii	2	1	1	1	2
37	NE	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	3	vi	6	6	five	4	four	3	3	3	3	iii	3	3
36	NV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	one	1	1	1	ane	1	1	1	1	2	two	3	4	4
9	NH	3	4	5	half dozen	6	5	four	three	3	three	2	2	two	2	2	2	2	two	2	2	two	2	2	ii
3	NJ	4	5	half dozen	6	six	half dozen	v	5	5	7	seven	8	x	12	14	14	14	xv	fifteen	fourteen	13	thirteen	12	12
47	NM	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	two	two	ii	2	3	three	3	3	3
11	NY	half dozen	10	17	27	34	xl	34	33	31	33	34	34	37	43	45	45	43	41	39	34	31	29	27	26
12	NC	v	ten	12	13	thirteen	13	ix	eight	7	8	9	9	ten	10	11	12	12	11	xi	xi	12	13	13	14
39	ND	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	2	three	ii	ii	2	2	1	one	one	1	i	i
17	OH	–	–	ane	6	14	xix	21	21	19	20	21	21	21	22	24	23	23	24	23	21	nineteen	xviii	16	xv
46	OK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	eight	9	8	six	6	half-dozen	vi	6	v	5	five
33	OR	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	1	2	ii	iii	3	4	4	4	4	5	v	5	5	6
two	PA	eight	xiii	18	23	26	28	24	25	24	27	28	30	32	36	34	33	30	27	25	23	21	19	18	17
13	RI	i	2	2	2	2	2	two	2	ii	2	2	2	2	3	ii	2	2	2	2	2	two	2	2	two
8	SC	5	6	eight	nine	9	9	vii	6	four	5	7	7	7	vii	six	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	vii	7
40	SD	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	2	3	2	2	two	2	2	1	one	i	1	1
16	TN	–	–	3	6	ix	thirteen	11	10	viii	10	10	x	10	10	ix	10	9	ix	viii	9	9	9	9	9
28	TX	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ii	iv	6	xi	xiii	sixteen	18	21	21	22	23	24	27	30	32	36	38
45	UT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	2	ii	2	2	two	2	iii	3	3	four	4
fourteen	VT	–	2	four	6	5	5	4	3	3	three	2	2	2	two	1	1	1	1	1	one	one	1	1	1
10	VA	10	xix	22	23	22	21	15	xiii	11	ix	ten	ten	ten	10	9	ix	10	10	10	10	11	11	11	11
42	WA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	5	6	6	vii	vii	seven	8	9	ix	10	ten
35	WV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	4	four	5	6	half dozen	six	6	5	4	iv	three	iii	3	2
30	WI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	6	8	9	10	11	11	10	10	ten	x	nine	ix	9	8	8	8
44	WY	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	one	1	1	one	1	1	1	i	ane	1	1	1

Changes following the 2010 censuses [edit]

On December 21, 2010, the U.Due south. Census Bureau released its official apportionment results for congressional representation. The changes were in effect for the U.Due south. elections in 2012.^[48]

Gain iv	Gain ii	Gain one	No modify	Lose i	Lose ii
i. Texas	1. Florida	1. Arizona 2. Georgia 3. Nevada 4. South Carolina five. Utah half dozen. Washington	(32 states)	ane. Illinois ii. Iowa 3. Louisiana 4. Massachusetts 5. Michigan 6. Missouri seven. New Jersey 8. Pennsylvania	one. New York 2. Ohio
+iv	+2	+six		−8	−4
+12 seats gained full				−12 seats lost total

Changes following the 2022 censuses [edit]

Circulation results were released on April 26, 2021:

Gain two	Gain one	No alter	Lose one
1. Texas	1. Colorado 2. Florida three. Montana 4. North Carolina v. Oregon	(37 states)	i. California 2. Illinois three. Michigan 4. New York five. Ohio vi. Pennsylvania 7. Westward Virginia
+two	+5		−seven
+7 seats gained total			−7 seats lost full

List of apportionments [edit]

The size of the U.Southward. House of Representatives has increased and decreased as follows^[49]

Effective appointment	Size	Change	Legal provision	Reason and/or comments
March 4, 1789	59	north/a	Const. Fine art. I, § 2, cl. three	Seats apportioned past the Constitution
November 21, 1789	64	5		N Carolina ratified the Constitution with the seats apportioned by the Constitution
May 29, 1790	65	one		Rhode Island ratified the Constitution with the seat apportioned by the Constitution
March 4, 1791	67	two	1 Stat. 191	Vermont admitted
June 1, 1792	69	2		Kentucky admitted
March four, 1793	105	36	1 Stat. 253 (Circulation Human activity of 1792)	Apportionment following the First Census
June 1, 1796	106	1	1 Stat. 491	Tennessee admitted
March 1, 1803	107	1	2 Stat. 175	Ohio admitted.
March 4, 1803	142	35	2 Stat. 128	Circulation following the Second Census.
April 30, 1812	143	i	2 Stat. 703	Louisiana admitted.
March 4, 1813	182	39	ii Stat. 669	Apportionment following the Tertiary Census.
December 11, 1816	183	i	three Stat. 290	Indiana admitted.
December ten, 1817	184	1	3 Stat. 349	Mississippi admitted.
Dec 3, 1818	185	1	three Stat. 430	Illinois admitted.
December 14, 1819	186	one	3 Stat. 492	Alabama admitted.
March 15, 1820			iii Stat. 555	Maine admitted, 7 seats transferred from Massachusetts
Baronial x, 1821	187	1	3 Stat. 547	Missouri admitted
March 4, 1823	213	26	three Stat. 651	Apportionment following the Fourth Census
March 4, 1833	240	27	4 Stat. 516	Apportionment following the 5th Demography
June 15, 1836	241	one	5 Stat. 51	Arkansas admitted
January 26, 1837	242	1	5 Stat. l	Michigan admitted
March four, 1843	223	nineteen	five Stat. 491	Apportionment following the Sixth Census, the simply time the size of the House was reduced, except for the small readjustments in 1863 and 1963.
March 3, 1845	224	1	v Stat. 743	Florida admitted.
December 29, 1845	226	two	5 Stat. 798	Texas annexed and admitted.
December 28, 1846	228	ii	5 Stat. 743 9 Stat. 52	Iowa admitted.
May 29, 1848	230	2	9 Stat. 58 9 Stat. 235	Wisconsin admitted.
March four, 1849	231	1	9 Stat. 235	Additional seat apportioned to Wisconsin.
September 9, 1850	233	2	nine Stat. 452	California admitted.
March four, 1853			9 Stat. 432	Apportionment following the Seventh Census.
	234	1	ten Stat. 25	Additional seat apportioned to California[b]
May 11, 1858	236	2	11 Stat. 166	Minnesota admitted.
Feb 14, 1859	237	1	11 Stat. 383	Oregon admitted.
January 29, 1861	238	1	12 Stat. 126	Kansas admitted
June 2, 1862	239	ane	12 Stat. 411	California apportioned an extra seat
March four, 1863	233	6	9 Stat. 432	Apportionment following the Eighth Census, in accordance with the 1850 deed, which provided for an apportionment of 233 seats
	241	8	12 Stat. 353	Supplemental circulation of 8 seats (1 each for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island), for an overall increment of ii seats in the 38th Congress
June twenty, 1863			12 Stat. 633	Westward Virginia admitted, three seats transferred from Virginia
October 31, 1864	242	1	xiii Stat. 32	Nevada admitted
March 1, 1867	243	1	14 Stat. 391	Nebraska admitted
March 4, 1873	283	xl	17 Stat. 28	Apportionment following the Ninth Census, replacing the 1850 act
	292	ix	17 Stat. 192	Supplemental apportionment added one seat each for nine states
August 1, 1876	293	one	13 Stat. 34	Colorado admitted
March iv, 1883	325	32	22 Stat. five	Apportionment following the 10th Demography.
November ii, 1889	328	3	25 Stat. 679	North and Southward Dakota admitted, with i and ii seats respectively.
November eight, 1889	329	1	25 Stat. 679	Montana admitted.
November eleven, 1889	330	1	25 Stat. 679	Washington admitted.
July 3, 1890	331	ane	26 Stat. 215	Idaho admitted.
July 10, 1890	332	i	26 Stat. 222	Wyoming admitted.
March iv, 1893	356	24	26 Stat. 735	Apportionment post-obit the Eleventh Census.
Jan 4, 1896	357	i	28 Stat. 109	Utah admitted.
March four, 1903	386	29	31 Stat. 733	Apportionment following the Twelfth Census (1900)
November 16, 1907	391	5	34 Stat. 271	Oklahoma admitted
January 6, 1912	393	ii	37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557	New United mexican states admitted
February 14, 1912	394	1	37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557	Arizona admitted
March four, 1913	435	41	37 Stat. 13 (Apportionment Act of 1911, §§1–2)	Apportionment following the Thirteenth Census (1910)
March iv, 1933			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Act of 1929)	Circulation post-obit the Fifteenth Census (1930)[c]
January 3, 1943			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Human action of 1929) 54 Stat. 162	Apportionment following the Sixteenth Demography (1940)
January iii, 1953			55 Stat. 761	Apportionment post-obit the Seventeenth Census[d]
January 3, 1959	436	1	72 Stat. 345	Alaska admitted
August 21, 1959	437	one	73 Stat. eight, §8	Hawaii admitted
January three, 1963	435	ii	72 Stat. 345 73 Stat. 8 2 U.Southward.C. § 2a	Apportionment post-obit the Eighteenth Census[e]
January 3, 1973			2 U.s.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Nineteenth Census
January 3, 1983			ii United states of americaC. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twentieth Demography
January 3, 1993			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Xx-Outset Census
January 3, 2003			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twenty-2d Census
Jan iii, 2013			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twenty-Third Census
Jan 3, 2023			2 The statesC. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twenty-Fourth Census

See likewise [edit]

• Apportionment paradox
• Congressional Apportionment Amendment
• Gerrymandering
• List of U.S. states by population
• List of U.S. states by historical population (tables of state populations since 1790)
• Redistricting
• Electoral vote changes between The states presidential elections
• Us Congress

Notes [edit]

• Delegate counts in italics represent temporary counts assigned past Congress until the next decennial census or by the U.Due south. Constitution in 1789 until the first U.Due south. Demography.
• Elections held in the twelvemonth of a census utilize the apportionment determined past the previous census.

1. ^ Congress failed to laissez passer whatever reapportionment to implement the 1920 United States Census so despite population shift, distribution of seats from 1913 remained in effect until 1933.
2. ^ The 1850 Apportionment nib provided a method to be used in hereafter reapportionments, likewise as establishing the then-electric current 233 every bit the number of seats to be apportioned afterward hereafter censuses. Due to census returns being incomplete in California, an additional act provided that California retain the aforementioned representation it had when admitted, until a new demography could exist taken. California would otherwise take lost ane seat, and then the total number of seats was increased by ane to 234.
3. ^ Congress failed to reapportion in 1923, post-obit the Fourteenth Census (1920).
4. ^ Pub.L. 77–291 amended section 22 of the Reapportionment Act of 1929 by wholly replacing its text.
5. ^ The Reapportionment Deed of 1929 stated that the "and so existing number of Representatives" would exist apportioned later each census, which would accept dictated an apportionment of 437 seats, but the Alaska Statehood Act and Hawaii Admission Human action explicitly stated that the new seats were temporary increases. Both acts included the phrasing "That such temporary increment in the membership shall not operate to either increase or decrease the permanent membership of the House of Representatives as prescribed in the Act of August 8, 1911 (37 Stat. 13) nor shall such temporary increase affect the basis of apportionment established by the Act of Nov 15, 1941 (55 Stat. 761; two U.Southward.C. § 2a), for the 80-3rd Congress and each Congress thereafter."^[50]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Kristin D. Burnett (November 1, 2011). "Congressional Circulation (2010 Census Briefs C2010BR-08)" (PDF). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic science and Statistics Assistants. Retrieved Feb 25, 2015.
2. ^ The populations of Washington, D.C. and federal territories are not included in this figure.
3. ^ Public Law 62-5 of 1911.
4. ^ ^{a b} "The History of Apportionment in America". American Mathematical Gild. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
5. ^ Rendered moot by the Revenue Act of 1924 and Indian Citizenship Deed of 1924.
6. ^ ii U.S.C. § 2c
7. ^ Bush signs federalization bill Archived February 13, 2009, at the Wayback Motorcar, Agnes E. Donato, Saipan Tribune, May 10, 2008.
8. ^ Goldberg, Jonah (January 15, 2001). "George Will Called Me An Idiot". National Review. Archived from the original on Feb xiii, 2009. Retrieved Apr 11, 2018.
9. ^ Madison'south notes on the Constitutional Convention - Tuesday September 17, 1787
10. ^ ^{a b} "The Federalist #55". constitution.org . Retrieved June 23, 2020.
11. ^ Todd, James (1952). "Police force and Contemporary Problems: Legislative Circulation (Chapter Title: The Apportionment Problem Faced by the States)". Law and Gimmicky Problems. Durham, North Carolina: Knuckles University. 17 (2): 314–337. eISSN 1945-2322. ISSN 1945-2322.
12. ^ ^{a b} DeSilver, Drew (May 31, 2018). "U.S. population keeps growing, but Business firm of Representatives is same size as in Taft era". Pew Inquiry Heart.
13. ^ Balinski, Michel; Young, H. Peyton. Fair Representation, Meeting The Platonic of One Man I vote". p. 51.
14. ^ "Congressional Circulation". NationalAtlas.gov. Archived from the original on Feb 28, 2009. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
15. ^ "Apportionment of Representatives in Congress". CQ Researcher by CQ Press. ISSN 1942-5635.
16. ^ "Proportional Representation". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, The states Business firm of Representatives. Retrieved September 21, 2018.
17. ^ "Ramble Amendments Not Ratified". United States Firm of Representatives. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
18. ^ Stone, Lyman (Oct 17, 2018). "Pack the House: How to Fix the Legislative Co-operative". Mere Orthodoxy. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
19. ^ Matthews, Dylan (June 4, 2018). "The case for massively expanding the US House of Representatives, in one chart". Phonation. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
20. ^ Hurlbut, Terry (April 16, 2015). "Packing the Business firm?". Bourgeois News and Views. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
21. ^ Taylor, Steven (December 14, 2010). "Representation in the Firm: The Wyoming Rule". Outside the Beltway.
22. ^ Kane, Caroline; Mascioli, Gianni; McGarry, Michael; Nagel, Meira (2020). Why the Firm of Representatives Must Be Expanded and How Today's Congress Tin Make information technology Happen (PDF). Fordham Academy School of Law.
23. ^ "The "Cube Root Dominion": A Push to Make Congress More Representative?". IVN. Independent Voter Network. Retrieved May 31, 2019.
24. ^ "FairVote - Hastings Letter". June 2, 2006. Archived from the original on June 2, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2020.
25. ^ Marimow, Ann E.; Pershing, Ben (April 21, 2010). "Congressional leaders shelve D.C. voting rights bill". The Washington Post.
26. ^ 3 Annals of Cong. 539 (1792)
27. ^ Act of Jan. 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 128
28. ^ Act of Dec. 21, 1811, 2 Stat. 669
29. ^ Act of Mar. seven, 1822, iii Stat. 651
30. ^ Act of May 22, 1832, 4 Stat. 516
31. ^ Act of 25 June 1842, ch 46, 5 Stat. 491
32. ^ Deed of May 23, 1850, 9 Stat. 432-433
33. ^ Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 572
34. ^ Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 28
35. ^ Human activity of 1882, 22 Stat. 5
36. ^ Act of 1891
37. ^ Act of 1901, 31 Stat. 733
38. ^ "Congressional Apportionment-Historical Perspective". U.Due south. Demography Agency. Retrieved October 27, 2013. .
39. ^ "two USC §2a". Cornell Academy Law School, Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May xiii, 2008.
40. ^ "Computing Apportionment". U.S. Demography Bureau. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
41. ^ "Congressional Circulation". NationalAtlas.gov. U.S. Department of the Interior. Archived from the original on Oct thirty, 2008. Retrieved February fourteen, 2009.
42. ^ Edward V Huntington (1921). "The Mathematical Theory of the Apportionment of Representatives". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the United States of America. 7 (4): 123–seven. Bibcode:1921PNAS....7..123H. doi:10.1073/pnas.vii.four.123. PMC1084767. PMID 16576591.
43. ^ "Priority Values for 2010 Census" (PDF). U.S. Agency of the Demography. Retrieved August 29, 2020.
44. ^ "Census 2000 Ranking of Priority Values". U.S. Agency of the Census. February 21, 2001. Retrieved May 13, 2008.
45. ^ "Priority Values for 2022 Census" (PDF). U.South. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved Apr 27, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
46. ^ Goldmacher, Shane (April 26, 2021). "New York Loses Firm Seat Afterwards Coming Up 89 People Short on Census". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
47. ^ Wang, Hansi Lo (May i, 2021). "How 26 People In The Census Count Helped Minnesota Beat New York For A House Seat". Retrieved May 17, 2021.
48. ^ "Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, by Land: 2010 Demography" (PDF). The states Census. December 21, 2010. Retrieved February 23, 2013.
49. ^ The Size of the U. S. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations, 30-one thousand.org.
50. ^ Run into, e.g., department eight of the Hawaii Access Human action, 73 Stat. 8.

References [edit]

• Balinski, Michael Fifty.; Young, H. Peyton (1982). Off-white Representation: Meeting the Ideal of Ane Homo, Ane Vote. New Haven, CT: Yale Academy Press. ISBN0-8157-0090-iii.
• Foster, Robert (1895). Commentaries on the Constitution of the The states: Historical and Judicial. Vol. ane. Boston: The Boston Book Co. pp. 329–446.
• Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John (1831). The Federalist. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Co. ISBN0-8239-5735-7.
• Edelman, Paul H. (2006). "Getting the Math Right: Why California Has Likewise Many Seats in the Business firm of Representatives". Vanderbilt Law Review. Nashville: Vanderbilt University. 102 (March): 297.
• Kromkowski, Charles A.; Kromkowski, John A. (1991). "Why 435? A Question of Political Arithmetics" (PDF). Polity. 24 (Fall 1991): 129–145. doi:10.2307/3234988. JSTOR 3234988. S2CID 155209561. Retrieved October 17, 2013.
• Agnew, Robert A. (2008). "Optimal Congressional Apportionment" (PDF). American Mathematical Monthly. Mathematical Association of America. 115 (April): 297–303. doi:ten.1080/00029890.2008.11920530. JSTOR 27642473. S2CID 14596741.

Further reading [edit]

• Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Taren (2004). "Counting Matters: Prison Inmates, Population Bases, and "One Person, One Vote"". Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Constabulary. Chicago. 11 (Wintertime): 229.

External links [edit]

• Congressional Apportionment past the U.S. Census Bureau

leakeseesser.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

Share this post